I have been trying to cover this debate over the last several months as it surfaces here and there on occasion.

My current commentary on these developments is now available here. Currently I have focused on the important distinction made by Ebert between art and high art. That's an important difference to consider which, it seems to me at least, renders his arguments less effective.

He does admit that anything, including games, can be art. Yet bringing in the question of high art, a superfluous concept in itself, makes me feel as though he has admitted to the obvious without realizing it. Just maybe.